OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Registration Clerk in 1957 in Registration Department of the Government of U. P. By order dated 9-11- 1979 he was promoted as Sub-Registrar in the same Department on ad hoc basis. Although Ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner as Sub-Registrar, was initially for one year, but petitioner was permitted to continue on that post.

(2.) GOVERNMENT of U. P. from time to time appointed and promoted large number of persons on ad hoc basis. In order to regularise services of those ad-hoc employees GOVERNMENT of U. P. in 1988, in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, promulgated U. P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Promotions (on posts within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988, (herein after referred to as Regularisation Rules, 1988). Under Rule 4 of these Rules an employee who was promoted on ad-hoc basis before January 1, 1985 and is continuing in service on that promotion post, if eligible for regular promotion and has completed three years service on the post, shall be considered for regular appointment by promotion on the basis of record and suitability. Under these Rules a Selection Committee was constituted to consider the question of regularisation of service of the petitioner and other employees. After consideration of the record of service of the petitioner and suitability, the Selection Committee recommended the case of petitioner for regularisation of his service and the GOVERNMENT, vide order dated 24-5-1989, regularised the service of the petitioner on the post of Sub-Registrar. The GOVERNMENT, however, vide order dated January 30, 1990, in exercise of power under Fundamental Rule 56, has compulsorily retired the petitioner from service. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) AFTER regularisation of service of the petitioner in May, 1989 there is no adverse entry against him in service record. Adverse entries awarded to petitioner in 1974, 1980 and 1982 have lost their significance, after regularisation of his service. Supreme Court in Dr. Ramaswamy v. Mate of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1982 SC 793, has held that effect of adverse entry is blotted out by the promotion of the employee. The Supreme Court held :